Next step of Leica?

[vic_.]

Now that you've all solved Leica AG's problems, how about taking a crack at solving the world economy, it should be a lot easier. Then we could all afford Leicas.

[fran__ois_p._weill]

Warren

 

>> ok. artifacts are bad, noise (that looks like grain) is good, grain is good. <<

 

This thread is going hilarious...

 

During film era, emulsions were constantly improved to give LESS grain for a given sensititivity.

 

The first 400 ISO emulsion I worked with was Ilford HP-3, it was about as grainy as a TX pushed to 3200 ISO.

 

During the 60's, the main liability of a 35mm inegative was its lack of enlarging capabilities without being affected by pesky grainy effect even at a moderate enlargement and the main argument of non-P.J. photographers to skip the small format and go for the medium format (mostly 6x6). A decade earlier, the famed Rolleiflex (6x6) was still considered by many a small format camera (see Marcel Natkin Rolleiflex Manual), just because of that ! ...

 

Some photographers used the grain (mainly in B&W) as part of their style, sometimes with a real success (Jean-Loup Sieff). For most of us, it was just an inconveniency we had to deal with and, IMHO, it was never something particularly desirable in color.

 

Modern film emulsions were far better all things equal than the older ones on grain reduction. This is demonstrated by the advice given in the "Hasselblad Manual" to use the engraved DOF table on the lenses for an aperture one to two clicks more open for maximum (apparent) sharpness as the grain of older emulsions from which the optimum circle of confusion was defined for the engravings generally masked the lack of actual DOF.

 

One of the forte of digital era pics is the lack of grain and the absence of noise which creates artefacts at high ISO on the best DSLR's is a blessing for most photographers.

 

Grain might have been part of film era "atmosphere" but it was mainly a necessary evil we had to accept as an unavoidable part of the process and the manufacturers ever fought against it. Electronic noise is a pesky thing, like grain was. Now if you want to give a grainy look to digital pics, you can, through electronic filters in post-processing, that's to your choice, but this nothing more than a backward move to pictorialism.

 

FPW

[fran__ois_p._weill]

John :

 

>> François P. Weill , Aug 02, 2008; 04:26 a.m. - your point's taken about my "American" view of cameras. I will say that the Canon 1DsmkIII is in essence a medium format camera. It's full frame and more than 20 megapixels. Comparing it to the M3 - in its' time - may be an exaggeration. I believe you'd agree with that. A photographer in the 1950's who needed fine detail, and no grain did not look to the M3, as today's photographer might look at the 1DsmkIII. You are obviously very knowledable on these subjects so I could be wrong. Good luck. <<

 

I do agree with you about the Canon EOS 1Ds MkIII. It is more akin an attempt of Canon to tackle the medium format defintion level... I don't consider it a particular success and all things equal it is as overpriced as the M8. Canon issued this camera too early for the state of the art as craming 22mpx on a 24x36 sensor does not allw for good performance at high ISO (strangely enough the 1Ds MkIII becomes a poor performer at more than ISO 640, like the M8).

 

Of course you are right about the use of an M3 in the 50's. But because the film and not the camera was the limiting factor, you can take much better images today with an M3 than when it was brand new... The M3 was by any mean a "state of the art" camera when it was issued, unfortunately tyhe M8 isn't and no external factor will decisively improve it.

 

FPW

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

FPW,

 

"During film era, emulsions were constantly improved to give LESS grain for a given sensititivity."

 

And Kodak's T-Grain technology was such an amazing breakthrough.

 

Just to add about Leica and film, as great as the lenses are/ were, with the 35mm format, you were really pressing it to print larger than 11x14. That was about as big as I would ever print before grain and loss of detail became objectionable to me, and this was with my 35 Summicron (talk about a lovely lens, the best I've ever used).

[john fleshin]

"Stereotyping is never truthful", forgive me, is this a stereotype?

 

I plan on maintaining boxes for the lenses I like, and hope to learn to use them effectively. I have read my M8 manual several times, and am waiting for the Roger Hicks, or Ctein guide to come out.

 

Still trying to figue exactly how to make my DR work, have found about four opinions on that.

 

When a DSLR hits a sweet spot, hopefully with some future super tech. full frame or larger break through, at the right price, my money will be available, and I will definately use it for telephoto shots, but when I want a light outfit to shoot up to about 90mm quickly, I like a RF.

 

Tested the IA today, shutter works, lens sharp, bit of flare.

 

Hope to be around long enough for affordable MF RF's, boy a nice GSW 690 D for $4K--

 

This should offend everyone.

 

Tolstoy, your thread is waiting, my batteries ran down finding the bottom of this thread, did the Russians eventually win?<div></div>

[sitemistic]

The 1DsMkIII a poor performer above ISO 640? Surely you are not serious. I've shot thousands of frames with the MkIII

and high ISO is no problem.

[warren_lafever]

why complain about something you cant do anything about? if the noise is high at high ISO dont use it, or get noise reducing software. or better yet get faster glass. if you think engineers are not working as fast as they can to solve this issue you are fooling yourself. cant you use a flash with the M8? (not in concert halls (i know about that)).

[mike dixon]

Considering one of the best advantages of M cameras is their suitability for shooting in "available darkness" (easy to focus, no mirror vibration), saying "can't you use a flash" rather misses the point. I often shoot at f1.4 and 1/30 of second (or slower) using EI 1600 or 3200. I'd love to have a digital rangefinder body I could use with my Leitz lenses, but I'm certainly not going to pay $5000 for one when both my 53-year-old M3 and my Canon 5D will do the job better.

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

Hey Mike, I'm glad I'm in your camp (#3, Jon) with all those battle awards next to your name, seriously. :) Good post!

[don_e]

"i meant grain. i dont like the artifacts. isnt there a noise reduction feature?"

 

NR tends to smooth out detail and can look watercolorish or smeared. Depends on the image and how and where it is printed, if it is an issue.

[william_tuovinen]

Ditto, Mike you just hit the core of it for me. Unless Leica comes up with a good option for that the only new thing I'll buy

from them will be lenses.

[vic_.]

<i>"... Ditto, Mike you just hit the core of it for me. Unless Leica comes up with a good option for that the only new thing I'll

buy from them will be lenses. ..."</i>

<p>So in the end, after all these 385+ posts, it boils down to money, the relative cost of a Leica M8 compared to one's

income or budget. (I thought I'd save readers having to plough through this lengthy eulogy.)

[ray .]

I'm glad Travis is going to be a guinea pig and try one. I want to see what he does with it. If it's good then if I could get a

mint one for 3 grand, maybe even a year from now, I might..

 

Then again, it might look like a Leica, feels like a Leica, IS a Leica, but what comes out is rather disappointing..

 

Tina mentioned something about shooting low light with a fast lens. So I guess to start to match the 5D in that department

you have to add a 3 or 4 thousand $$ lens... Hmmm, 3+ to 6 grand for body depending on new or used, & maybe almost as much for one

fast lens......... Anybody

here good at math?

;)

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

And no one even mentioned that if want to use a 35 Summicron you have to buy the bigger, heavier, and more expensive 28 Summicron. It just isn't the same experience. The 50 becomes a pretty useless 65mm lens. Ugh.

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

Oh yeah, how does $3995.00 sound for the 28 Summicron versus a thousand less for the 35 Summicron which becomes a 45 Summicron. Ugh.

[warren_lafever]

digital medium format RF.. i like the ring of that. maybe leica could whip something up? and charge 4295.00 body only. and it could use the m lenses. post 390 and i stayed on topic!

[william_tuovinen]

"relative cost of a Leica M8 compared to one's income or budget"

 

I can rationalize just about any price they throw at me and make the budget fit, but at some level it would have to wake

me up after brewing fresh coffee every morning. If they can't even beat my film RFs or DSLRs then I see no reason to

justify the current cost.

 

My hope for their future steps is to make a DRF of a quality that makes their current critics at least wish they had the

budget to buy it.

 

Of course I post this in the interest of threshing an equid which is most certainly deceased.

[fran__ois_p._weill]

Vic:

 

>> So in the end, after all these 385+ posts, it boils down to money, the relative cost of a Leica M8 compared to one's income or budget. (I thought I'd save readers having to plough through this lengthy eulogy.) <<

 

How to make a diversion, lesson two...

 

No Vic, it is not the relative cost of an M8 compared to "my" budget I consider and I don't think it is the case of most of its detractors either. The main problem with money and the M8 is the technological value for money of this camera. El Fang may be using harsh terms to describe it but he is fundamentally right : Considering the M8 random problems of reliability, its unability to take noiseless pictures at high ISO; its cropped sensor and its lack of relevant modern modes, it makes it a camera inferior to a less than $ 1000 entry level DSLR. What it has these entry level cameras doesn't is a far better image at low ISO and a PART of the inherent advantages of a rangefinder camera (it lacks the >> suitability for shooting in "available darkness" << to quote Mike Dixon)... Very few indeed to justify spending $ 4000 more... To which you have to add the cost of a wide angle Tri-Elmar at best (if you have already some M-mount glass) to compensate for the loss of wide angle capabilities. This is not acceptable for most phtographers and compounded by a poor customer's service.

 

You can forgive a manufacturer for issuing a very cheap camera with random reliability problems which is not destined to professional use. You can forgive a manufacturer to issue a more serious camera which is not loaded with all the features a pro model will have and which doesn't reach the performance of the best pro ones in all categories, like an entry level DSLR, but you cannot forgive a manufacturer which pretends to issue a "described as high end", intrinsically overpriced camera and for which, to add insult to injury, it is unable to offer a proper service within reasonable delays.

 

Late M film cameras already had some of these problems - including being overpriced moreover for the technology built in the body - but they used to be reliable and the remarkable Leica lens quality was useable on a body which used the same high speed film any other one of identical format used and the lenses were used at their nominal FOV.

 

I wish to make mine as a conclusion the remark of William Tuovinen : >> My hope for their future steps is to make a DRF of a quality that makes their current critics at least wish they had the budget to buy it. <<

 

FPW

[fran__ois_p._weill]

Warren wrote :

 

>> digital medium format RF.. i like the ring of that. maybe leica could whip something up? and charge 4295.00

body only. and it could use the m lenses. post 390 and i stayed on topic! <<

 

Sorry Warren but you have demonstrated here a complete lack of technological knowledge in optics... M lenses are

designed with "circle of sharpness" which covers the 24x36 format, try to use them on a larger format and you'll

end up with a circular image in the center with the edges progressively becoming more and more blurred on a black

background.

 

By the way, and this is not directed on Warren personnaly, this kind of affirmation makes somewhat relative the

argument you cannot form your judgement and emit an opinion on the M8 if you don't own one... Something which,

after all, may be true, provided you don't have the necessary technological knowledge on things applicable to ANY

camera or lens, as actual experience will be the only way to know :-)

 

FPW

[sitemistic]

Leica is in the enviable position of not having to deliver on its promises. The ad at the bottom of this window for the M8

says, "How much can your camera stand? The Leica M8. Practically anything." That's demonstrably not true. But I've seen

post after post of people who've had their M8 back at Solms more than they've used it because of problems, posts that end

with, "but I love the M8."

 

Leica, it seems, has transcended mere functionality.

[warren_lafever]

yeah i kind of thought about that when i wrote my post. i guess its time for new lenses too. they can call it the B series (unless thats already taken) the lenses would should be between $900-1500. wishful thinking i know but, its wortha shot.

[steve_mareno]

It's a shame that this thread turned into a film/digital rant for a few of so called "pros". Who cares about the pros (whatever your definition of that might be) when you are talking about Leica's next move? Canon sold a whole lot of AE-1 cameras, and did you ever see a pro shooting w/ one? Leica needs to stay in business, and going to digital (which is a poor medium anyway w/ it's artifacts, lack of shadow detail, poor exposure latitude, and general wierd look) would have them playing w/ the Big Boys. Nikon, Sony, Canon, etc. Good luck! Besides, boy, just what we need huh? Another digital camera. Yawn. People who shoot Leicas care about their unique lens imaging and their superior build quality, and I am sure the very vast majority of these people shoot film for all the obvious reasons. Leica might want to look at how Ferrari runs their business. Like Leica, they appeal to a high end niche market. Their products are designed and built in house w/ a high degree of craftsmanship. They have a storied history behind them. But unlike Leica, Ferrari's engineering takes a back seat to no one. They can still make a better product, in their niche, than anyone. Leica should work w/ what they have and be who they are. Following the leader will get them nowhere. I would like to see them improve the build quality even more, and damn the price. Nearly all of their buyer base shoots film, and their lenses are optimized for it, so that is their past, present, and future. AF lenses on an AF camera that retains all of the great qualities of their M cameras would be smart. Who wouldn't want to try one of those? The M camera has gone about as far as it can go, technology wise.

[doug herr]

steve mareno wrote: "<I>... digital (which is a poor medium anyway w/ it's artifacts, lack of shadow detail, poor exposure latitude, and

general wierd look)...</I>"

<P>

I'm guessing you haven't used the DMR. I find the DMR's files to have excellent shadow detail and latitude, with very clean, natural

colors and very rare aliasing problems. Could you show me the problems you've mentioned in these pictures?

<P>

<CENTER>

<IMG SRC="http://wildlightphoto.com/mammals/lagomorphs/deco03.jpg">

<P>

<IMG SRC="http://wildlightphoto.com/birds/picidae/acwo02.jpg">

<P>

<IMG SRC="http://wildlightphoto.com/birds/phasianidae/witu19.jpg">

<P>

<IMG SRC="http://wildlightphoto.com/birds/ardeidae/greg03.jpg">

<P>

<IMG SRC="http://wildlightphoto.com/birds/trochilidae/ruhu01.jpg">

<P>

<IMG SRC="http://wildlightphoto.com/birds/scolopacidae/will00.jpg">

<P>

<IMG SRC="http://wildlightphoto.com/birds/corvidae/stja03.jpg">

<P>

<IMG SRC="http://wildlightphoto.com/birds/recurvirostridae/amav01.jpg">

<P>

<IMG SRC="http://wildlightphoto.com/birds/strigidae/leow01.jpg">

<P>

<IMG SRC="http://wildlightphoto.com/birds/falconidae/amke01.jpg">

<P>

<IMG SRC="http://wildlightphoto.com/birds/corvidae/ybma01.jpg">

<P>

<IMG SRC="http://wildlightphoto.com/birds/anatidae/cago01.jpg">

</CENTER>

<P>

The only reason I can think of that you might reach the conclusion you have is that you haven't seen many photos from a DMR or M8.

The next time you're near Sacramento California I invite you to look at my prints made from the DMR and decide for yourself.

[warren_lafever]

wow, those are some really nice photos.

 

as for digital, how long did it take film to get good? the fact they are still working on it means its been well over 100+ years. where can digital be in that time? there has to be some leeway provided for a learning curve.

[warren_lafever]

i understand that digital is not film and should not be treated as such but, it is the replacement for film.